Our Lenin is the fierce one. According to Wikipedia, the sculptor "intended to portray Lenin as a bringer of revolution, in contrast to the traditional portrayals of Lenin as a philosopher." But that’s not what the freedom-loving people in Czechoslovakia wanted. Erected in 1988, they pulled it down as soon as they had the opportunity in the Velvet Revolution of 1989.

Would that the LPCSs (liberal-progressive-commie-socialists) of Seattle had as much sense. This piece of propaganda has been disgracing our city since 1995. The owners claim that "Art outlives politics." They also congratulate themselves for evoking "very strong reactions" and launching dialogues.

I would argue that Seattle’s Lenin is not art. It uses an art form–sculpture–to express a political message. The owners of the statue are also sending a political message through their choice. Would they allow a statue of Jefferson Davis, such as the one standing in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol, to stand on city property? No, that would offend African Americans. How about one of Mohammed? Again the answer is no; they’d get their heads cut off. Or how about Ronald Reagan? Or a creche at Christmas time? All of these choices would evoke very strong reactions, launch dialogues–and more.

To the owners’ credit, they do dress up Lenin in silly outfits for the holidays. And this year, someone painted his hands red–a long overdue statement of the one essential fact about this tyrant.

I wish this site would allow us to post photographs so I could show you a photo I took of two young people bent over at Lenin’s feet while his bloody index finger points down at them and the cold concrete beneath them.

0 0 votes
Article Rating